Post Your Comment

24 Comments

Looks good. IMHO the tongue is susceptible to damage; especially during the normal wear and tear of plugging in the cable on a mobile device. Is there any mention on how much power this connector will be able to transport? 100W would be a good start no?Reply

It's not clear from the Intel slide deck if the higher power options will need different cables, but I think the connector may be standard but that the cable will need to be more robust to support the higher voltage/current levels.

Why Illusion ? there was talks about supporting 100W on regular USB cables by using higher voltages instead of high amperage, considering current quality USB cables can handle 2.1A, then working with 48-50V is enough to have 100W... this will work well for a lot of applications including laptops, tablets, external displays, external storage... the specifications require the device to negotiate first and request how much wattage is required so the power will be delivered :)

The only requirement I see will be improved insulation for the higher voltage, though it will be easier as it will be DC and not ACReply

That's a great idea. The only problem is exposed power pins are a big UL no no. There is an easy solution though, to protect the pins you could just put a shield around it. Oh wait that's exactly what a tongue is.Reply

Replacing the standard A connector? Good luck. All current PCs and laptops use Type A and by the time they could phase it out in favor of Type C, a faster cable type or standard will have arrived.Reply

Hrm, is a little confusing that the image doesn't show an A<=>C cable and calls it "USB 3.1." Sure hope existing laptops, etc. will be able to work with Type C gadgets, and laptops will Type C ports can use them to talk to A/B gadgets.Reply

I would really like to see most devices going forward ship with Type-C connectors and include small Type-C to female Type-A connectors in the short term. Not only does this enable future compatibility with other Type-C devices, but it also opens up design space with the smaller ports. Also, if I'm not mistaken (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong here), the Type-C spec includes functionality to auto-negotiate which device is the host, eliminating the need for USB On-the-Go (OTG).Reply

What's your reasoning? The Type-A connector has been around for a very long time and there is no reason that Type-A and the proposed Type-C can't live side-by-side on the same devices for many years before the Type-A connector becomes outmoded.Reply

Really? Tongue in the socket again? Is this just a stubborn refusal to admit Apple did something well, or are they trying to produce a low cost/low rent connector at the expense of reliability?

USB1/2/3 ports can have the tongue easily ripped out by people tripping on the cords and pulling to the side, as any PC tech will tell you. It's a design that is easily improved, and if they're going to break physical compatibility anyway, there is really no excuse. The connector should either be Lighting style, or Thunderbolt/Mini-DP style (but reversible).Reply

You don't realize that Apple is running this standards committee. The "lightning" connector did not have enough pins and was in need of an upgrade, Apple took over and dominated the "C" connector definition.Reply

Please oh please someone get the USB-IF off this crazy idea of putting a tongue.. users have suffered enough with the fragile piece of junk that is microUSB. I've even stopped putting it in my designs and have gone back to mini USB which at least is more robust.

The way microUSB connectors so easily break off somedays I wonder if this is all a plot by tech companies to make more money on device replacements. Now given full design liberty and even a competing Apple's Lightning they still go an add a little plastic tongue? Well that confirms it.Reply

If only Lemo connectors didn't cost 20-50$ each. And they still have a "right side up" which was always the ridiculous annoyance with USB 1-3. But at least Lemo connectors are super high quality, and the right orientation would be immediately obvious.Reply